The second The World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance is scheduled for next April. The first conference was held in 2001, in the week before 9/11. Backgrounder
There is a full page add in the Washington Times today, urging President Obama to boycott this conference. (No link provided)
Israel and Canada have already announced their intentions to boycott the conference, on the grounds of extreme criticism of the State of Israel in the 2001 conference . Obama, historically, has indicated a general willingness to engage with individuals and groups of differing opinions.
Should the Progressive community urge Obama to send a US representative to the conference, or to boycott the conference in solidarity with Israel?
Washington has not sent a representative to the planning sessions, but has signalled that it would send a representative if the anti Israeli rhetoric was toned down. Jewish Civil Rights and other Anti-Racism groups are divided on the merits of attending and confronting the dispute, or boycotting, rather than legitimizing an unfair criicism of ISrael.
Washington has not attended the negotiation sessions over the forthcoming review conference’s outcome document and claimed that it would likely not attend the event. Bush administration officials have added that a delegation from the United States still could go to Geneva if it determined that the anti-Israel rhetoric would be removed from the proceedings. The officials have said that a final decision should be made by the new administration.
While Jewish groups are pressing the United States to skip Durban II, human rights and civil rights groups have urged Washington to attend in order to combat more effectively any anti-Israel discourse and to weigh in on myriad racism issues that the conference is supposed to examine.
“This will be one of the first U.N./human rights issues the new administration will have to deal with,” said Tad Stahnke, director of the fighting discrimination program with Human Rights First, an organization that supports the participation of all U.N. member states in the racism parley
Forward
Hillary Clinton, the candidate signalled support of a US boycott of Durban II in a speech to AIPAC, but Obama didn't specify a particular action, but affirmed Israel's right to defend her positions.
Clinton, who is now slated to become secretary of state and, as such, would directly oversee the issue, told Aipac at the time that Durban II would be “a test of resolve” for the next president.
“We should take very strong action to ensure antisemitism is kept off the agenda at Durban II,” she said. “And if those efforts should fail, I believe that the United States should boycott that conference.”
Obama, for his part, pledged to “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world,” but did not mention the racism parley.
Forward.
Tzipi Livni, Israel's Foreign Minister, and candidate for Prime Minister explained the Gov't position as follows
"The documents prepared for the conference indicate that it is turning once again into an anti-Israeli tribunal, singling out and delegitimizing the State of Israel," Livni told Jewish-American leaders at the UJC General Assembly in Jerusalem.
Advertisement
"The conference has nothing to do with fighting racism," she said. "In view of this situation, I decided that Israel will not participate and will not legitimize the Durban II conference."
The foreign minister also called on the international community "not to participate in a conference which seeks to legitimize hatred and extremism under the banner of a fight against racism."
Haaretz
Some observers are seeing this as President Obama's "first test".
So, what do you think? Should Obama ask SoS Clinton send a representative to Durban II? Should the US decline to participate?